It's tempting to blame all of paizo's scheduling woes on that, but the Starfinder AP schedule was borked long before that, this just made it worse.
Search Posts
Honestly, I don't mind what format we get it in, as long it's at least vaguely regular. It's been over a year since we had any new Adventure Path content for Starfinder (And yes, I know, I know Scoured Stars, but I ran that AP back when it was just me stringing scenarios together, I don't need to run it again) Mechageddon is somewhere off in the horizon, but we haven't had as much as a module since Drift Crisis Case files, which was itself 3 shortform adventures in a trench coat.
How about we rename all the classes. Envoy can become Grifter, Technomancer can become Mastermind, Operative can become Thief, Mechanic can become Hacker and Soldier can become Hitter. Then it can be Space Leverage
Pretty early on is a relative term considering Starfinder's glacial release schedule.
The middle point of exactly the same and totally different is commonly referred to as "similar" Also you keep saying Wizard in Space. I'm saying Space Wizard. There is a difference, which I've explained and you've ignored. If you're genuinely looking at the class for Technomancer and seeing no difference between it and the PF1 Wizard conceptually outside of gear, I don't know how I can continue this discussion, because many of the SF1 wizards class features dealt with technology and scifi tropes. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous
A wizard-like caster with technology focused abilities is a Technomancer. That's what technomancers are. That's the concept of a Technomancer, long before starfinder got its hands on the term. Its someone who does tech and magic and tech magic. I don't expect it to work like a 1e technomancer. It would be very weird trying to force that into the 2e base chassis. Probably very bad. I expect it to feel like a 2e caster that deals with tech and magic in a similar feel as a wizard, a class which in lore comes the closest to treating magic like a science as it is. A Technomancer should feel like an evolution of a wizard, applying those principles of learning and discovery and integrating them with the technology of the world.
I love the idea of flavouring metamagic as programming concepts. That's great
4th option, Technomancer clearly treads similar ground to Wizard, and in some respects duplicates functionality while also having its own unique elements Being able to describe the 1e Technomancer, Operative, Soldier and Mystic as "Space Wizard, space rogue, space fighter and space cleric" was a good thing actually because those are clear and important niches for a space fantasy game. If you can't fill the niches of Space Fighter, Space Rogue, Space Cleric and Space Wizard, your Space Fantasy game is missing a huge fundamental pillar that people expect. But people don't just want a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard. The Space part (which here more accurately means futuristic and technological, as well as space) is important as well. SF1e managed to do that well.
That’s not going to happen, the Traditions aren’t flavor, they’re core mechanics.Also, on the actual topic of Mystic traditions... we're exploring different options at the moment. As some people have pointed out, the current slew of SF1 spellcasting classes universally would fall under the Occult banner, and that's not something we're too keen on maintaining in the new edition.Well, the easiest fix is of course not having traditions and instead rely on bespoke spell lists. And the Technomancer seems pretty Arcane, even if they don't seem to be appearing in the core book. I'll agree that Traditions as a concept aren't going anywhere, but I do think that Starfinder would benefit from its own set of traditions. The Pathfinder traditions are very fantasy driven (which they should be because it fits the flavour very well) but they don't capture the more cosmic feel that Starfinder evokes.
I want a Starfinder handheld computer that can do 10% of what Hardison's smart phone can do.
Those are specific responses I've had, both on this forum and in other places (discord and reddit) to my concerns, including literally calling me a grognard for wanting anything resembling a Technomancer when the Wizard exists in PF2. I'm choosing to assume that your offers of reassurances are made in good faith, and not, as it came across in first read, as horribly patronising. I don't want Technomancer to be a copy of the Wizard. I certainly think that the Mechanic has plenty more room then just being a copy of the Inventor, and in fact would find that depiction of Mechanic incredibly lacklustre. I do think that the Technomancer should exist as a technology and arcane magic focused caster. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to realise that Paizo can't fit it in the core rulebook, especially compared to something like the Witchwarper which is going to pretty much getting built from the ground up and absorbing the precog in the process (I'm also not happy about that, but I get it) I do think that lacking the Technomancer and the Mechanic at launch will make the system feel woefully lacklustre, akin to PF2 launch with no Wizard, Ranger or Sorcerer. I don't expect every class at launch, and I understand some classes won't ever get ported. I know some people still dislike that Cavalier is probably never getting ported to PF2. But removing both Tech focused classes from the core rulebook severely limits what players are going to be able to do in the system from the get go. If I tell players we're playing a Science Fantasy game with spaceships and lasers as well as magic, I guarantee that at least 1 player is going to want to play an engineering forward class, with an emphasis on technology. That player will be disappointed at launch until a nebulous, unannounced technology splatbook comes out on Starfinders agonizingly slow release schedule.
I work in cyber security, actual hacking is showing up to the server room with a hardhat, a clipboard and a busy demeanour, here to service the leaking coolant line
I think that's a pretty disingenuous strawman of peoples concerns. I have concerns like "I won't be able to make a mechanic or a technomancer because those classes aren't being included in the core book for some baffling reason" and when I've brought that up as a concern I've been told "Well inventor exists so you don't need a mechanic" or "Just play a wizard with engineering skill"
Probably because a constant reply to discussion has been "X starfinder class can't fill niche filled by Y pathfinder class, we already have Y pathfinder class for that"
Yeah I'm scratching my head at the idea that Technomancers were remotely occult.
I misread John Henry as John Hemry, and got excited that someone else here was a Lost Fleet fan.
I'm aware that Enhanced has been in your back pocket a long time. I stated as much in my post? If you're stating, directly and openly, that at the time of announcing Starfinder Enhanced in February, you had absolutely zero plans for SF2, I will retract my statements with apologies.
I don't think they knew they were going to be making SF2 when they started work on Starfinder Enhanced, but I'm damn sure they knew by the time they announced Starfinder Enhanced, despite strongly stating SF2 wasn't on the horizon. I'm not complaining about the closeness between Enhanced coming out and then being subverted by SF2. That's a consequence of WOTC's actions. I don't mind that. What I do take a little objection to is being told that a new edition wasn't in the works when it very evidently was. I especially object to being told that "noone was asking for things like Resolve or 6th level spellcasting limit to be in SF2" when we had been told that there wasn't an SF2 on the horizon. I would go as far to say that going by what people complain about (and i freely admit, many people loudly, constantly wanted a PF2 compatible starfinder) Paizo have opened themselves up to massive selection bias in the feedback they have weighed. That's why I asked if there had been any actual data driven surveys of what players actually wanted in SF2, especially for design philosophy decisions made way in advance of any playtesting. Paizo can of course run their business any way they please, and I don't think they should be beholden to random a!*$&#+ fans like me. (listening to my opinions sounds like a terrible way to run a business, honestly, since I'd argue for dropping PF2 adventure paths in favour of making content that I buy, like Starfinder Adventure paths, given the opportunity) but I do think they would have benefited from actual formal data collection, rather then listening to the squeaky wheels in the fandom.
i will say, having run this before it was an official product, playing Scoured Stars in order with a consistent group really is a rewarding experience.
I don't want it to do everything, I want it to be as adaptable a class as it was in 1e. I will admit I had missed the close Quarters fighting style. I was very turned off by all of the language of description in the initial released playtest being focused on heavy weaponry and AOE focused. That felt like a narrowly focused class compared to the generalist frame the class had been. I would still like to avoid Soldiers being pigeonholed soley as face tanks with big weapons, but given how PF2 works that might be unavoidable. Hopefully the base chassis will be at least adaptable enough to make for a functioning "generic warrior that can cover a wide array of fighting styles depending on build" That being said: January 27th: WOTC formally abandons plans to deauthorize the OGL, and releases the SRD 5.1 into Creative Commons, leaving Starfinder and other 3.x based games still at the mercy of them messing with the OGL in Future. March 8th: Paizo announce Starfinder Enhanced, and stress it is not a new edition, strongly imply a new edition is not in the card just yet in comments sections.
If a soldier is specialised in AOE damage to the extent that has been communicated to us, does that mean we can't make a lethally precise soldier? Or a soldier dedicated to mixing it up in melee? An honour-driven corporate samurai? All of those were not only possible in the SF1 soldier chassis, but absolutely normal. If theres one thing I especially valued about Starfinder it was the ability to use multiple classes to build towards the same general concept. It might be addressed differently, but you could do it. I am worried that in the rush to distance the Soldier from the Fighter, and the Mystic from the Cleric, they are also distancing the Soldier from the Soldier and the Mystic from the Mystic. Of course, the Mystic could already have been distinct from the Cleric just fine by not having 10th level spells, but apparently that decision was written in stone long before we were even told there would be a 2nd edition. Probably back when Paizo were still vehemently claiming that 2nd edition wasn't on the horizon while promoting Starfinder Enhanced.
But then I hear things like "We already have the Fighter class as a generalist combat dude, so we decided to make the Soldier a face tank specializing in AOE damage" and "The Mystic is a divine/primal caster", and that feels like Starfinder is being influenced by a lot more than just the Pathfinder engine, But that leaves Starfinder without a Generalist combat dude, and reliant on importing a PF2 class if you want that functionality.
A lot was made when PF2 came out of the quote "Complexity is the currency with which we buy depth" and I don't disagree with that. But as a comparison I'd argue that genericness is the coin with which we buy compatibility. I would hope that Paizo were wise enough to avoid sacrificing all uniqueness of Starfinder as a setting on the altar of turning it into a PF2 expansion that while fully compatible, no longer feels like starfinder. I'm not convinced that will be the case, but I hope I'm wrong
Warpwitch is 300% better then Witchwarper, and I can't believe I didn't see that till this moment.
With no disrespect intended, but it really feels like Paizo has set a bunch of major gameplay philosophy decisions in place without consulting any of the player base as to if those choices were things we wanted. I'm not making a judgement, I am expressing an opinion. Was there a consultation of what people wanted in SF2 that I missed? Because I would have been extremely clear and specific in that, if the question had been asked. You're saying some things are subject to change but I'm struggling to get an impression of how much is actually up for debate. As it is, a lot of really huge changes are being presented as a fait accompli, and that really hurts when those changes are wholesale removal of things that made Starfinder fascinating to me. I also don't appreciate being called silly for not having played a system that hasn't been released and yet daring to have opinions and concerns about what form that might take. Jokes about "you'll still have SF1" also don't land well in this discussion. I'm not wholeheartedly against the idea of a new edition. I am against the idea that said new edition needs to throw out every good unique part of Starfinder in the name of compatibility, a goal which has never sat well with me.
I meant it more as the mechanic should be more than just a repaint of the inventor. In the same way the soldier isn't being a repaint of the fighter and the operative isn't one of the rogue. We absolutely SHOULD have a mechanic, I hard agree on that. It just needs its own space and structure. But if that means that whole sections of gameplay are being lopped off because "it exists in Pathfinder" then I'm not in favour. Soldier being space fighter is fine because there isn't a fighter in starfinder. If Soldier is locked into being a narrow slice of "space warrior" that isn't conceptually covered by fighter then that is a failure of Starfinder to be its own game. Starfinder 1 was it's own game. From Core Rulebook, with no pathfinder content required. And it's base classes covered an overwhelming majority of Science Fantasy niches. Starfinder 2 needs to be that or it is a failure. Simple as.
Honestly finding out Starfinder is going to full casters is bad news for me. I preferred the deemphasis on magic compared to technology in Starfinder. This feels like yet another instance of the unique feel of Starfinder being discarded in exchange for compatibility with Pathfinder. With no disrespect intended, but it really feels like Paizo has set a bunch of major gameplay philosophy decisions in place without consulting any of the player base as to if those choices were things we wanted.
I will say, any justification of "we don't need x class in Starfinder because it already exists in Pathfinder" is a failure state for me. In no uncertain terms- if Iconic Scifi characters can't be made in Starfinder without Pathfinder classes being imported, Starfinder is no longer its own game, but just an expansion pack for Pathfinder that I need to adapt Pathfinder classes into in order to have a whole game. Maybe that's the direction Paizo wants to go. It is not something I would purchase. It is certainly not something I would GM.
Launching a 2nd edition with less classes at launch then even just the first edition of the Core Rulebook feels like a huge step down though. PF2 had every Core Class plus the Alchemist at launch. Losing any of the Core 7 classes from Starfinder feels like a huge trench of character types unfulfilled.
I mean hey, it's not like Paizo hadn't stopped putting out new adventure content for Starfinder anyway, even before they announced 2e...
Losing Operative, Mechanic or Technomancer would be absolute failure for me. If the goal is to make Starfinder an expansion for PF2 that absolutely relies on importing PF2 classes, that really weakens it in my opinion. If the goal is to have Starfinder be an actual game in it's own right, those are 3 huge character niches that cover vast swathes of scifi characters and absolutely need to be in the core.
Toughness takes on more importance in the BNW world where frontline fighters don't wear armor and the meta is based around the assumption that you are going to get hit on anything short of a natural 1
Is that the map from SFS 1-02?
I will agree with the OP that regardless of the actual substance of the news, the messaging for this announcement has been horribly aimed for Starfinder players. The FAQ was better, but it sucks feeling like an afterthought for the second edition of the game we actually were buying and running.
I will say, I find this response quite dismissive and upsetting. It's a legitimate concern that with the change to PF2 style ancestries, there will by neccessity be a lot less ancestries to play with in SF2 compared to SF1, especially given Starfinder's much slower release schedule. Seeing that very reasonable concern responded to with "The sky is not falling" doesn't actually fill me with confidence
Stamina. If we keep stamina, I'm happy. Not as a poorly implemented optional rule tacked on after the fact. Bake it in. It's the best thing Starfinder has and losing it will hurt bad.
Fly Free or Die is a great Adventure Path for £20, that alone justifies price of admission.
I'm currently into book 3 of Mummy's Mask and everyone's having a great time. I'm also playing in a Jade Regent game (Hi Matt, I see you upthread) and I'm definitely having a fantastic time. I think the PF1 AP's are a damn good product (largely) and I don't see that changing any time soon. Even if I was to switch up to PF2, I'd probably want to adapt one of the PF1 AP's or modules I have. Or maybe run Abomination Vaults, it looks fun.
I don't think it's likely to happen, because it'd be a big Society thing crossing over into main-line Starfinder, but hey, it's happened before, so ** spoiler omitted ** Kishmo, that is hilarious. And I'm stealing it.
I think it was hamstrung by Paizo severely reducing the amount of Starfinder Adventure content. As it was, outside of an Adventure Path (technically 2 but by the barest technicality) the rest of the stories Paizo told in the Drift Crisis were kind of dancing around the edges of it- Before the Storm was pretty good, and I do think would make an excellent first session in any Drift Crisis themed campaign. I think ultimately the problem I had was, as a society gm at least, the crisis only felt like a crisis when the scenario was tying into it. Otherwise it was business as usual. I'd have liked to have seen Season 5 tying directly into the Drift Crisis, maybe focused around, if not a resolution, then some kind of amelioration. That ties more into my general frustrations with Season 5 though, which felt kind of lacking an identity compared to previous seasons.
Highly recommend people checking out the Crittercon Keynote interview with Thurston Hillman, which covers Enhanced in a lot of detail https://cosmiccrit.com/crittercon-6-keynote-thurston-hillman-strikes-back/
Outside of Season 1, it's kind of impossible to do the metaplots as adventure paths though. The level ranges vary so much that it's basically impossible to play them in order on a single set of characters. And they often don't make sense to play them in level range order. Season 2, 4 and 5 are particularly bad for that.
Can we ask what's causing the delays? Is there some kind of publishing issue or are Paizo just slashing the number of Starfinder books per year even further then we thought?Hello! I can't speak too definitively, but it's nothing to be super concerned about. We've had some scheduling challenges that impacted a few release dates, and this is one of the more visible products being affected. :) I mean, the concern is that we're going almost a year between any Adventure content for Starfinder that isn't organised play...
I think it would be easier to swallow if there was anything else to fill the gap? Knowing we are at least 10 months away from a new Adventure Path or Module really hurts, especially when that next one is repackaged Society content. And that's not to slam on the idea- Scoured Stars as an AP is such a good idea I already did it last year. If we had even a single Module in the rough Octoberish period I feel like this would go down better. The lack of transparency in the announcements, with us being told "theres big things coming we swear" in one breath with a mumbled "in 2 years maybe" implied through actual product schedules is very frustrating. It's just hard to get excited when every scrap of news we seem to get for Starfinder's adventure content, the side I'm personally most interested in, seems to be delays and reductions.
Can we ask what's causing the delays? Is there some kind of publishing issue or are Paizo just slashing the number of Starfinder books per year even further then we thought?
Yeah not gonna lie, if they can't get a single hardcover of reprinted material out without a 6 month delay, it doesn't bode well for the line. This is how systems like Starfinder die. It's never an announcement that the lines ending, just less and less and less content, in a vicious cycle- less content and especially less adventure content means fewer players and new campaigns, so paizo redirect more resources to PF2, and it goes on and on till theres nothing left.
Yeah I don't see the appeal of bad pseudoscience driven by an ideological hatred of the big bang theory being awkwardly forced into an RPG. Especially since Plasma Cosmology exists (nominally) to explain the exact same universe, what on earth would this book even seek to change about the universe of Starfinder? All it would be is a paper thin propaganda piece for a discredited scientific theory.
Honestly, just give Mechanics native skill focus in Engineering or Computers at level 1, and some flavour abilities that let them, I dunno, reroll engineering once a day or something. Maybe something that lets them craft temporary items quickly to give them a bit more of a gadget focus.
Hell's Rebels Chapter 6 was very well written but Sweet Sarenrae, it was Dark as hell, no pun intended. I'm currently running Mummy's Mask and very excited for book 6
|